Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 25, 2009 6:32pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: More new monsters

Let's see if these are safe to add:
LAST WOMAN ON EARTH (color)
INVASION OF THE BEE GIRLS
DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN (Chaney)
DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN (Naschy)
THE GHOUL (Prague print)
TEENAGERS BATTLE THE THING
CURSE OF THE BIGFOOT
ATTACK OF THE ANIMAL PEOPLE
HALF HUMAN
THE FLESH EATERS (color climax)
FACE OF THE SCREAMING WEREWOLF
MONSTER AND THE STRIPPER

I'm sure at least some are PD, but some might be questionable so I'll wait for feedback before I go ahead.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 26, 2009 12:12am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Last Woman, Bee Girls, Drac v Frank (Chaney, Naish), The Ghoul, Teenagers v Thing are PD.

Naschy Drac V Frank, Half Human, Flesh Eaters, Screaming Wolf, Monster & Stripper are Not PD.

I can't find references to a movie titled "ATTACK OF THE ANIMAL PEOPLE"

Also, I am getting the Czech print of "The Ghoul" ready for upload.


LAST WOMAN ON EARTH (color) Not Notice so PD. But Retromedia's DVD print is copyright as a derivative work for "editing, soundtrack and panning and scanning" so don't use that print.
INVASION OF THE BEE GIRLS No Notice so PD. Original prints had no notice 70's reissue prints "Graveyard Tramps" also had no notice. Some 80's prints had a notice added under the title.
DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN (Chaney) No notice on original prints, so PD. No elements were registered before publication. the producer/director has lodged many meaningless registrations and renewals for this film so it may get a take down notice.
DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN (Naschy) Naschy owns the negatives for his films. He is serious about defending GATT restoration in his work. The guy who does the artwork for Naschy's DVDs says Naschy is releasing his movies in Hi-def versions and isn't a fan of the old PD prints being around as well.
THE GHOUL (Prague print) PD in UK at Gatt. Still PD in USA.
TEENAGERS BATTLE THE THING AKA Curse of Bigfoot. No notice no registration PD.
CURSE OF THE BIGFOOT. same movie as above
ATTACK OF THE ANIMAL PEOPLE. Can't find any reference to this movie
HALF HUMAN Renewed 1987
THE FLESH EATERS (color climax) renewed 1990
FACE OF THE SCREAMING WEREWOLF contains notice copyright
MONSTER AND THE STRIPPER copyright


This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-04-26 07:12:46

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Apr 27, 2009 6:01am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

So, the more complete print you mention here - the one I own - isn't PD?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 27, 2009 6:58am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

There are a lot of copyright issues with the recently restored version of The Ghoul. There are some rights in the restoration that can be claimed:
-There are some scenes that did not appear in the original US release version. As they were first published on the MGM DVD, these would not be public domain in the US.
-There are also issues with some of the score material as some international release prints did not feature the same music.

But, on the bright side, the longest term the British version of this film can secure copyright under current UK law is until midnight 31 December 2014 which is 70 calender years after the death of the last surviving credited priciple author of the film (T Hayes Hunter) who died in 1944. At that time all surviving elements of this film re-enter the UK public domain.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Apr 27, 2009 8:05am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thanks. Gotta wait another 5 years...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Walloon Date: Jun 15, 2009 12:31am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Under UK copyright law, the authors of a fictional film are the director, screenwriter, and music composer. The last surviving author of THE GHOUL was screenwriter Roland Pertwee, who died in 1963. Thus, THE GHOUL will be under UK copyright through 2033 (1963 + 70). The US copyright will last through 2028, 95 years from first publication.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jun 15, 2009 1:07am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

For the Prague Print and original US cut (which no longer exists), the apparent restoration of copyright in this work under UK law subsequent to URAA does not effect the US copyright status of the work released in the US without notice, registration or renewal.

The "relevant date" for URAA was 1 January 1995 with a one year transitional period before the automatic restoration of foreign works still protected by copyright or "neighboring rights" in their home nation as at the relevant date (it is a common misconception that it was the restoration date). The transition was to allow PD content users' (reliance parties) time to transition to the new system.

Under the relevant UK law at the time, which was the Copyright Act 1956 (in line with the transitional rules in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988) the period of copyright in a film was a flat 50 year period from publication without regard to any authors' date of death. Because UK laws were altered, restoring lapsed copyrights, during the transitional period, any UK films that were PD in the US due to non-compliance and 50 or more years old at the end of 1994 remained in the US public domain. They do not qualify for restoration under the terms of the URAA and its changes to the USC.

It should also be noted that, under the various transitional terms of the copyright acts in the UK, it is debatable whether a film made before the commencement of the 1988 Act is covered by the current law or the previous Acts 1956, 1911.

URAA restoration of copyright in lapsed foreign works was recently found to be unconstitutional, violating the first amendment rights of "reliance parties". http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Golan%20order_0.pdf
It is possible that the restoration elements of the law, which were not strictly necessary under GATT, may be overturned.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Walloon Date: Aug 20, 2009 10:29am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thank you for your detailed reply.

You write, "Because UK laws were altered, restoring lapsed copyrights, during the transitional period, any UK films that were PD in the US due to non-compliance and 50 or more years old at the end of 1994 remained in the US public domain."

The transitional period was from 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996, correct? But the UK copyright of THE GHOUL was restored by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 (to life of the author(s) plus 50 years), not during the transitional period. The 1995 Regulations only extended the copyright term (to life of the authors plus 70 years). Thus THE GHOUL was under copyright in its country of origin long before the transitional period began.

As for Golan v. Holder, the court found Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act overbroad only "to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain". The Internet Archive is not a reliance party unless it can be shown that the Internet Archive distributed THE GHOUL prior to 1 January 1996.

This post was modified by Walloon on 2009-08-20 17:29:11

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jun 15, 2009 9:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Life of Authors + 70 years motion picture copyright terms were introduced by the mid 1995 UK Copyrights, Designs and Patents 1988 ammendments. Prior to the 1995 ammendments film copyright retained the fixed copyright terms reflected in the 1956 act (50 years). These ammendments introduced author's-life-based copyright terms to motion pictures in line with the EU standard. Prior to that all published and registered films made before the 1988 act were covered by the terms of the 1956 Act.

The 1988 act, at its inception, did not have the effect of reinstating any copyrights in works that had lapsed under the fixed terms of the 1911 and 1956 acts and the relevant film and film registration legislations. Reinstatement of lapsed copyright only occurred with the retrospectivity of the 1995 ammendments.

Some of the individuals who post digital copies of their prints on Internet Archive were "reliance parties". A successful constuitutional challenged should not preclude those "reliance parties" from using Internet Archive as the forum for the distribution of their protected speech.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-06-15 16:47:26

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-06-15 16:49:54

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Walloon Date: Jun 15, 2009 10:38am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thank you for your reply.

You wrote, "Because UK laws were altered, restoring lapsed copyrights, during the transitional period, any UK films that were PD in the US due to non-compliance and 50 or more years old at the end of 1994 remained in the US public domain. They do not qualify for restoration under the terms of the URAA and its changes to the USC."

What is the section of the URAA that disqualifies films whose copyright status changed during the transition period of 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&;docid=f:h5110enr.pdf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jul 10, 2009 6:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

In UK law, motion pictures remain protected by the relevant legislation at the time of publication and/or registration. There are three relevant pieces of legislation.

1. Copyright Act 1911
Films published on or before 31 May 1957 are protected as:

a) dramatic work protected for life of author (Director) + 50 years

b) a series of photographs (protected for 50 years from creation or 50 years from publication if published within 50 years of creation.)

c) a sound recording or series of sound recordings.(protected for 50 years from creation or 50 years from publication if published within 50 years of creation.)

2. The Copyright Act 1956
Films published and/or registered between 1 June 1957 and August 1989 are protected for a period of 50 Years for publication or registration. For unpublished/unregistered films created during this period, copyright lasts for 50 years from 1 August 1989.

3. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.
For films created after 1 August 1989 copyright lasts for life plus 70 years for the last surviving "principle author" (director, producer, screenwriter, composer)

As such the 1995 UK copyright extensions did not have the effect of reinstating the copyright protection in "The Ghoul" during the transitional period for URAA. Thus rendering the film ineligible for copyright restoration.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Walloon Date: Jul 10, 2009 9:43am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thank you for your reply.

What is the section of the URAA that disqualifies films whose copyright status changed during the transition period of 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jul 10, 2009 7:32pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Just for clarification, no British films protected by the 1988 or 1956 Acts where in the public domain during the transitional year for GATT. Only British films whose copyright had expired under the 1911 Act where in the public domain. Copyright term extension in 1995 did not and does not effect their status or copyright term. In other words, these film's copyright status did not change during the transitional year. So qualification for GATT/URAA restoration was the same at both the commencement and close of the transitional year. The qualifications for GATT/URAA restorations are:

"(6) The term “restored work” means an original work of authorship that—
(A) is protected under subsection (a);
(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to—
(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;
(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or
(iii) lack of national eligibility;
(D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country.
(E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording. (Title 17, §104A(h))
"The Ghoul" was not eligible for GATT/URAA restoration because of its non-compliance with:
(B) as the work entered the UK public domain at 00:00 1 Jan 1995:
a) Dramatic work expired 50 calender years after the author T Hayes Hunter's death in 1944. (31 december 1994)
b) photography expired 50 calender years after publication 1933 (31 December 1983)
c) sound recordings expired 50 calender years after publication 1933 (31 December 1983)
and (D) the only authorial rights holder under British law was a US citizen, Thomas Hayes Hunter.

Should a work's native copyright be changed, or a copyright relationship be formed, after the commencement of URAA a further 2 year transitional period comes into force before new eligible PD works are restored under US law. The eligibilty requirements are the same as when the URAA altered Title 17 (except (E), above, which was added in late 1997)

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-07-11 02:32:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 26, 2009 3:35am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thanks for the info. If you want to put up "The Ghoul", great. There's enuogh PD on my list to keep me busy for a while.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 26, 2009 1:29am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

I think he means INVASION OF THE ANIMAL PEOPLE, the Americanized version of TERROR IN THE MIDNIGHT SUN.

As for LAST WOMAN ON EARTH, Retromedia painstakingly restored the color widescreen version of the film from rare surviving prints. There is a great black and white copy of the expanded TV version of the film here on IA, and that's PD. (IMHO, this B&W version is a bit better story-wise, with a couple of good added scenes, shot with the 3 primary actor just a few years later to lengthen the film for TV syndication.) Alpha Video and probably a couple of other PD budget DVD outfits do sell a washed-out, full-screen color print, and I imagine that one is still PD, but I think the easy way to tell if your ccpy is PD or not: if it's in both color AND widescreen, it's not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 26, 2009 3:19am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Ok, so how about "INVASION of the Animal People"? I don't have any problen with being corrected if I'm a little off. Thank you. As far as the rest of Naschy's work, I'm a fan of his so I wouldn't want to make him mad at me, so I'll leave them alone. As far as the rest of the stuff that IS PD, I'll get to work on it as soon as I can.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 26, 2009 5:52am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Just trying to help. Animal People is a wacky film, and most likely PD.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 26, 2009 6:11am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

The copyright to Invasion of the Animal People was registered and renewed by Medallion TV, so it's still under copyright.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 26, 2009 6:39pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Interesting, I'd have sworn it was PD, since it's in the current Sinister Cinema catalog.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 26, 2009 11:13pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

From what I understand, Sinister Cinema's catalogue contains films which are PD, or they have permission to use them, and a few are owned outright by Sinister Cinema. I've been buying stuff from them for many years, and I remember when they had to take a lot out of their catalogue because of GATT, so I don't think they would intentionally disregard copyrights. I have noticed they carry some items that are supposedly owned by Wade Williams (there's that name again) though.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 27, 2009 10:16am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

I'd think that if it's in the Sinister Cinema catalog, it's a pretty safe bet that a film is PD, as he's been in the business for about 25 years now. However, a few films that were in last year's catalog are now gone, so who knows?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 27, 2009 6:08pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Just got the new catalogue today. I seem to remember sometimes I would order movies and when they came in, every so often one of the tapes would not be his product, but someone else's.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 27, 2009 7:03pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

I've been extremely hesitant to order anything from Sinister the past few years, after two of my orders got lost in the mail.

Some of their DVDs show up on Amazon.com at a much lower price, so I order there instead, as long as I can find the specific title I'm after.

The one company I order more DVDs from than anyone is Oldies.com, aka Alpha Video. Also Mill Creek Entertainment and St. Clair Vision. Hey, ya can't beat those prices.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 27, 2009 9:12pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

I bought "Dead Men Walk" on vhs and later bought the dvd from Alpha. I notice both copies had the same film flaws at the same points in the film. Apparently Alpha was making copies of Sinister's product. I asked someone at Sinister if they were aware of this and they told me I wasn't the first to let them know. But that's how it is with PD films. Theoretically, you, I, or anyone can take public domain movies from any source, be it film prints, video tape, dvd, or even what's offered here on IA, burn it to dvds, then sell the dvds, and it would be legal. Of course, that's just my understanding. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 26, 2009 1:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Ok, we'll take that one off the list, thanks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Apr 26, 2009 11:39pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

I'm looking forward to DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN (Chaney).